Obradovich: Balanced budget: A plan or a gimmick?

Sep. 24, 2012

Democrat Christie Vilsack, who’s running for Congress, says it’s a gimmick. Congressmen Dave Loebsack and Leonard Boswell, both Democrats, broke with most of their party to vote for it last year, but Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan split from his party and voted no.

Such are the political gymnastics that teeter around the balanced budget amendment.

The proposal that came up for a vote in the House last November would have required annual budgets to spend less than revenues. It would take a three-fifths majority to pass spending in excess of revenues, except if the country were at war. Unlike some proposals, the amendment did not require a super majority to raise taxes. (Hence Ryan’s opposition.)

The House voted 261-165 for the amendment, far short of the two-thirds majority required to advance it toward ratification. Loebsack, who met with Register reporters and editors on Monday, was one of 25 Democrats who supported the proposal.

“At a minimum, I think it’s symbolic that we be talking about a balanced budget amendment, to send a signal to the American people,” Loebsack said. “I don’t think it’s a gimmick, of course not. I take it seriously.”

Loebsack’s Republican opponent, John Archer, supports a balanced budget amendment with an “emergency trigger” in case of war or other “extreme circumstances,” according to his campaign spokesman. Vilsack is running against Republican Congressman Steve King, who also supports a balanced budget amendment.

Vilsack, however, told the Register editorial board last week that she thinks a balanced budget amendment, which could take years to ratify, is just a delaying tactic. “It’s just an excuse not to get it done right now,” she said.

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, was in Iowa last week pushing the message of impending fiscal disaster in the U.S. due to the unchecked debt. Interestingly, he agrees with Vilsack on the balanced budget amendment’s usefulness.

“I think it would be a distraction, frankly,” Bixby said on “Iowa Press,” which aired last weekend on Iowa Public Television. “… My view would be we need to try to solve the problem rather than passing an amendment to the Constitution that would say somebody should solve the problem.”

Supporters of a constitutional amendment often argue that Iowa has to balance its budget every year, so why should anyone oppose such a rule for the federal government? It sounds like a good question, but it suggests inaccurately that Iowa is constitutionally required to balance its budget.

Iowa’s balancedbudget requirement is in law, not in the state constitution. Iowa’s governor and legislators are required to spend no more than 99 percent of projected revenues. There are plenty of loopholes, and at times the Legislature has simply agreed to ignore the spending limits. Yet the state budget today is balanced.

One of the big reasons why is that Iowans support the law and there is at least a perception among lawmakers that there would be political consequences for violating it. The law helps stiffen elected officials’ spines to say “no” to some spending requests and force eventual consensus on the budget.

A balanced budget amendment is a gimmick, sure. Yes, there would be loopholes — and there should be reasonable exemptions for disaster situations. But even without full ratification, it could bolster the political will in Congress for fiscal responsibility.

Congress shouldn’t need a balanced budget amendment to do its job, but it clearly needs more immediate consequences for failing. I’d rather see a return to “pay-as-you-go” budget rules, spending cuts and tax reform rather than a constitutional change.